Architecture as a global practice is largely grounded in Eurocentric foundations and ideals. Architecture as a language, even more so.

Closer home in the Global South, the way we speak of and about architecture is naively limited in its teachings, outlook, and outreach, as well as its dissemination, across colleges, studios, and in general, often traceable to Alberti's ten books, or the ideas of Marc-Antoine Laugier's ‘Primitive Hut.’ It remains ingrained in our pedagogy and continues to be part of our practices. As the global majority starts to reclaim alternate, unique paths rooted in local culture and practices, must we too, consider the influence our individual educations have played in our current architectural gestalt, formed of knowledge building, teaching, learning, propagating, and progressing?

Let us regroup for a moment to move past the roots of the Indian architectural pedagogy—it is consequential to consider how subjective pedagogies have evolved. The unique social fabric, not just of the subcontinent, but even the smaller part, has nurtured unique cultural practices and processes, many still practised and taught in abundance today, yet still not part of the mainstream. Have they affected the pedagogical paradigm at large? We believe so. Terrain, climate, and cultures have dictated how people have lived and evolved, as did their architectural traditions of educating and eventually, performing. But have we reflected on how that affects the way we learn about architecture, what perceptions are fostered, overlooked, or destroyed, or what we actually learn in the first place?

In a semi-structured round table discussion held at the STIR Gallery in New Delhi, India, experts from the Indian community of architectural practitioners and esteemed academicians congregated to unpack, dismantle, debate, criticise, support, and rethink the state and chassis of the architectural vocation in the country. Confronting the silos of educational, pedagogical, and conventions of practice were Dr. Anupama Kundoo, Prof. KT Ravindran, Dr. Venugopal Maddipati, Ar. Sudipto Ghosh, Ar. Madhav Raman, Ar. Vishal K Dar, Ar. Nidhi Batra, and Ar. Rwitee Mandal, in a freewheeling conversation moderated by Amit Gupta (Founder, Editor-in-Chief, STIR), Samta Nadeem (Curatorial Director, STIR), and Devanshi Shah (Assistant Editor, STIR).

For those of us fortunate (or unfortunate) enough to have had an education in architecture in the country, the actual profession and its curricular framework remain in sharp (if not completely absolute) disconnect: For many, the five (or more) gruelling years of sleepless nights, constant presentations, and juries, as well as on-site excursions, invited awe, inspiration, curiosity, frustration, and self-doubt in equal doses. For others, the course itself became a springboard toward fresher, disparate career options. But a common thread persisted—what, and how we are taught and exposed to within Indian architecture schools vs. how, and what we end up doing and learning when we step into an actual office, remains vastly incongruent—few feel equipped enough. The motivation and the thirst to learn run largely uninterrupted, but for a majority, the novelty wears off dishearteningly fast, when they realise that their intellectual stimulation has not been dealt with suitably over this exercise.

This brings us to inquire, deeply: “Has Indian education in architecture grown beyond its foundations in the training of draftsmen with skills that support the architect? Are we still importing ideas as opposed to evolving them? What role does education play in having the ability to know the difference between the two? If individual pedagogies continue to be supplemental to inherited ideologies of architecture, and architectural education, what does that mean for the progress of the architectural vocation in the subcontinent?,” as succinctly put forth by Shah.

Pedagogy in Indian architectural schools is organised, yet mainly transactional—a system of give and take. Across the board, heterogeneous routes take form for hundreds of students studying the same course, the same syllabus, receiving the same exposure, and being taught by the same faculty. Upon nearing the course’s end, and perched on the precipice of the ‘real world’ of architectural practice, many often bemoan the loss of being able to participate in authentic discourses, the wasted opportunities of expansive exposure and cultivating critical thinking habitually. What became of those years and who takes the blame for this occurring disconnect?

Based on Shah’s succinct concept note (as articulated in the introduction), she rightly asserted while addressing the setting how architecture as we speak about, or in its pedagogical garb, remains primarily in English, which might have its own limitations apart from harbouring cultural, preconceived notions. Kundoo, an internationally renowned architect, educator, author, and researcher, was vehement in her description of ‘architecture as language’ throughout—architecture for her, is itself, the language of communication. For many in the room, the architectural practice actualised into a vehicle of expression much after studying it, linguistic, abstracted, or symbolic, as they explored and learned anew over their individual trajectories.

I have found that the most effective way to learn is not to let any other language be more important than the language of architecture itself. – Anupama Kundoo

Ghosh presented germane food for thought, by inquiring whether the architectural practice and pedagogy in the Global South are diverging or remain irresolute; whether this pedagogy, chiefly entrenched in Eurocentric traditions and practices are becoming more nuanced; whether our disciplinary silos are being interrogated enough; whether the language of communication reinforcing these silos are built around actual expertise or not.

“Given the above, we are already starting to miss ‘pure architecture’ without the adjectives laid out by multi-disciplinary approaches. The biennale at Venice this year was a clear indication, barring a few instances, that architecture had moved away from its erstwhile anchors of aesthetics and tectonics. Is there anxiety about this?” questions the Indian architect, educator, researcher, partner at S. Ghosh & Associates, and co-founder of Poché Studio.

Poetically expounding on the ‘texture’ of languages, Dar brought forth a pertinent enquiry as the conversation gathered momentum, of what truly informs the system of architectural education in India, and if, genuine education for architects begins beyond institutes. “Who are these institutes for?” the Indian artist and architect queried. “Does pedagogy exist, or can it exist outside of institutes? How can we include the artisanal practices/ languages and their intrinsic learning methodologies, where ‘language’ refers to a method of expression? Can pedagogy even have a functional space that can be plugged into practice?” he continued.

Architectural historian, author, and dean in-charge of the School of Design at Ambedkar University, Delhi, Madipatti commented how “Patrik Schumacher's recent comments in Venice are provocative. They seem to suggest that architecture has somehow lost its path. Architecture is no longer what Schumacher identifies as a ‘self-referentially closed system’—which begs the question, when was architecture, if ever, such an enclosed system to begin with in India, or even in the South Asian context, in general?”

“In post-independence India, for instance, Modernism was promoted as a collective or historicist assertion, or even more specifically, as a symbol for collectivised thought. And to that extent, Indian architectural modernism, be it in Charles Correa's oeuvre, or in that of Laurie Baker, was always filtered through a thoroughgoing sense of social realism, often intertwined with a sense of environmental or climatological realism. So, if history, or at least the more recent post-independence history offers no substantive grounds for ‘architectural autonomy,’ how fair or appropriate is it to concede to Schumacher's assertions?”

Architect, urbanist, writer, and co-founder of Anagram Architects, Raman confessed to rebelling against his own practice often, because of the way the five-year course ends up conditioning students, leaving them ‘black and blue and bruised’ by the end of it. “This is one of the most fundamental dilemmas—my desire to be engaged intellectually, regardless of my native tongue, (and I see it in many people coming from small towns into big cities to study architecture)—Why am I here and what am I learning? Is it a self-discovery or am I equipping myself to eventually earn a living? Every architectural studio and class are premised on the idea of criticality and narratives, which never get to be practically explored,” he exclaimed.

In parallel, architect, urban designer, spatial design practitioner, researcher, visiting faculty (urban design dept.) at the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi, and senior urban design consultant at Safetipin, Mandal relayed how imperative the role of language is in our pedagogical narratives, and subsequently, those who become architects, while mourning the lost opportunity for students being taught to approach solutions logically and test out their interventions in real-time. “Without the language, you cannot express. (Upon graduation), I wish someone had taught me how to critically think and approach projects in a logical sequence, to arrive at something conceivable and not remain hypothetical, and try to build our ideas, to test them… but sadly this wasn’t emphasised. That leaves you with a kind of vacuum,” she declared.

Conveying and deeming language to be ‘manipulative,’ especially acquired ones, Nidhi Batra, architect, urban designer, educator, development practitioner (Sehreeti), and faculty (urban regeneration) at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, elaborated on how design thinking or architectural training lies beyond institutes. “How we position the role of an architect is crucial,” she said.

Sourabh Gupta, principal architect, managing director of studio Archohm, and founder of The Design Village, was unable to join the conversation in person and shared his thoughts on the multifarious agenda of discussion by relaying how the biggest issue for him, is “to liberate the mind to take an Indian position on a global architectural platform without the apology of the irrelevant colonial or historical baggage. We still are the West, as is our past. We look up to both as sheer market demand or aspiration, leaving no room for deeper inquiries and bespoke directions.”

Believing that everything has its own place and value, Ravindran highlighted how imperative it is for architects to nurture ‘compassion’ as a primary skill. “There needs to be a fundamental shift in the way we have imagined what our learning environment is. We have just assumed that it is about knowledge creation and completion. I think we have been missing the (fact) that architecture is far bigger than the many things and facets it adheres to, or has to. That’s where compassion comes in—that must be communicated to (the students)—I feel that every architect needs to have that very deep-rooted compassion,” he asserted gently.

The topic of 'jargon' vs 'articulation' was considered and discussed with aplomb: certain phrases and terms (such as Tabula Rasa) have mutated with blind repetition and tone-deaf precision into our general vocabulary, with many not even understanding what it means, or how its actual usage is entirely contextual. Here, the demarcation that must be discerned between articulation and expression was debated, with Nadeem deliberating: “The use of language to talk about architecture, whether in jargon or expressed coherently through articulation, through a curatorial standpoint, comes across as an issue of privilege, i.e., the hegemonical, often privileged positioning of an architect, and their perceptions. What is it that we can do to subvert the centrality of architects in worldbuilding within architectural education? Is it time to subvert that and can that begin in classrooms?”

Left with a handful more questions with what we began, the almost three-hour-long discussion was wrapped up with all the speakers being asked to summarise the essence of their inputs in three words by Shah, alongside a hopeful yet inquiring question posed by Gupta—"Is there a need to shift and review the current systems of education? Do we still need to stick to the same guidelines that have articulated architectural education for years? Would we want to expand the skills and conditioning of an architect, in order to humanise the profession? Where is the education system headed?"

One of the most notoriously fascinating aspects of the architectural landscape, is the way age-old practices co-exist with the nascent, how its interwoven intricacies and established ideals remain just as profound and influential as the learnings gathered and implemented over recent years. When we over-emphasise the need for an improved, more inclusive, and equipped architectural education system, for a shift in the way we perceive the contributions of the West to the rest of the world, and for a critical relook at conventional curriculums, we express a rational preference for a unanimous, systemic change. Our inherent habit (or conditioning) of marginalising this kind of expertise and propagation has deep roots which are rarely questioned. Perhaps, there is credence in challenging or even beginning to acknowledge this legacy.

Often parlayed a utopian vision of architecture, which is frankly, impossible to achieve, not many are ready to confront or even recognise the unpleasantness of the profession, as well as the manner in which it is packed and disseminated. Regardless of the reality of creatives maturing into architecture, as time-consuming as buildings becoming realities, it shouldn’t cement into the only style of operating, of taking years to acknowledge and mend existing issues. This is where the language of architecture holds value; the language it is imparted in; the language it is disguised and created in—that narrates the way the pedagogy around it takes shape, which ultimately colours the way we practise it; and that practise itself becomes one of the most effective, real-time, and fervid educators, towards finding one’s agency within architecture, as experienced professionals who are confidently, intellectually, and vocationally equipped.

Consequently, how must the industry re-calibrate? Or is there even a need to?

Watch the summarised version of the conversation by tapping on the head banner.